Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Question: Should Any Seriously Mentally-Challenged Persons Be Baptized?

Forum Quick Jump

127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:05 AM (GMT -6)

I'm open dude. Just give me a REASON to perform the baptism.

It's like your default position is to baptize anything that's breathing and only refrain IF there's a really good reason to refrain. In other words, you ASSUME infant baptism and then require a theological reason to refrain.

My default is to do what I see in the New Testament...baptize people upon their confession of faith, and then only step outside of that if I have a really good reason to do so. Can you give me any good reasons to do so? I'm not trying to be boneheaded (ha!), just want to grow and learn and change if I need to.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/22/2010 10:14 AM (GMT -6)

Actually, my default before WAS believer's baptism. But as I've been thinking all this through, I am open to infant baptism where I wasn't necessarily before. My position is somewhere between the Methodists and Reformed. (Grace mediation, Covenant community, etc)

And no, it's not about baptizing "anything that's breathing". It's actually about baptizing infant (and MD/MR persons with infant-like minds) within a community of faith.

If something like what happened at WHC's baptism (ie baptizing a mentally-disabled person with the whole baptism crowd witnessing and praising God and all) were to be attempted again in a ministry I was working with, I'd want to know what I would tell the family and why.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/22/2010 9:18:23 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:20 AM (GMT -6)

What WOULD you tell the family (i.e., what reason would you give people for baptizing infants or MD/MR people)?

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:26 AM (GMT -6)

So basically I think you want baptism to be fundamentally about the community saying something about the person being baptized. It has to be that if you permit it at all. It can't be about the baptized one declaring her intentions and faith. So it's a means by which the community says, "we commit to this infant and her family to be a part of raising her in an atmosphere of love and acceptance." Same thing for MD/MR?

I can get with that. I can get with it because I think communities SHOULD make this sort of commitment to families and their children. I don't think baptism is the proper/biblical means for making it, but I wouldn't divide a church over it. But I also wouldn't pretend to teach that it is what it is not...NT Baptism. It's a corruption (at worst) or a misappropriate (at best) of a sacrament that we've essentially redefined to satisfy modern denominational sensibilities and marketing requirements.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/22/2010 10:35 AM (GMT -6)

Ok. Say a believing, baptized family in comes to a church I'm working with...and they have a 12-year old mentally retarded daughter that they want to "have a more full membership in Christ's Body" (these are their words, now) They are just now doing this after going through all kinds of self-questioning of validity. Talking to the 12 year old girl, it's really difficult to say how much of "faith" she genuinely understands as opposed to just simple head-nodding and such to certain questions. At the same time, the family fully understands the communal nature of this event...and believe that God will continue his work in the little girl's life through this act of covenantal dedication.

At this point, I wouldn't see any reason NOT to do it. Lord have mercy on me.

What would YOU tell them, Tom?

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/22/2010 10:40 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
So basically I think you want baptism to be fundamentally about the community saying something about the person being baptized. It has to be that if you permit it at all. It can't be about the baptized one declaring her intentions and faith. So it's a means by which the community says, "we commit to this infant and her family to be a part of raising her in an atmosphere of love and acceptance." Same thing for MD/MR?

I can get with that. I can get with it because I think communities SHOULD make this sort of commitment to families and their children.

This is why WHC does infant DEDICATIONS rather than infant BAPTISMS. Greg felt you could get the whole "community saying something" thing WITHOUT making it deal in any way with mediation of Grace.

***********************************************

Tom:
I don't think baptism is the proper/biblical means for making it, but I wouldn't divide a church over it. But I also wouldn't pretend to teach that it is what it is not...NT Baptism. It's a corruption (at worst) or a misappropriate (at best) of a sacrament that we've essentially redefined to satisfy modern denominational sensibilities and marketing requirements.

Weird. How could there be so much infant baptism in Church Tradition (assuming the Spirit was involved in that and all) end up trying to satisfy MODERN, DENOMINATIONAL sensibilities? Don't see that, homie.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:43 AM (GMT -6)

D: Ok. Say a believing, baptized family in comes to a church I'm working with...and they have a 12-year old mentally retarded daughter that they want to "have a more full membership in Christ's Body" (these are their words, now) They are just now doing this after going through all kinds of self-questioning of validity. Talking to the 12 year old girl, it's really difficult to say how much of "faith" she genuinely understands as opposed to just simple head-nodding and such to certain questions. At the same time, the family fully understands the communal nature of this event...and believe that God will continue his work in the little girl's life through this act of covenantal dedication.

At this point, I wouldn't see any reason NOT to do it. Lord have mercy on me.

What would YOU tell them, Tom?

T: I'd tell them I'd be happy to do it provided we understand that it's just as a means by which the Community embraces and commits to the care and love and provision for this daughter and her family. And grace is always at work when people make these sorts of commitments.

So...

....If the family says, "No, we believe she has to be baptized to wash away her original sin and save her from the fires of hell in the event she were to die; THAT'S the baptism we want you to administer."

What would YOU then tell them?

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 1/22/2010 9:54:20 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:45 AM (GMT -6)

D: This is why WHC does infant DEDICATIONS rather than infant BAPTISMS. Greg felt you could get the whole "community saying something" thing WITHOUT making it deal in any way with mediation of Grace.

T: Ha! But 'dedications' ARE a mediation of grace. At least that's how I've always view them. If they're not about grace, then WTF are we doing them for? Ha!!

T

KIXYTΘEMTA

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:46 AM (GMT -6)

D: Weird. How could there be so much infant baptism in Church Tradition (assuming the Spirit was involved in that and all) end up trying to satisfy MODERN, DENOMINATIONAL sensibilities? Don't see that, homie.

T: Just talking about the ECC and the reasons THEY give for REQUIRING their pastors to perform BOTH infant and believer's baptism.

T

KIXYTΘEMTA

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:50 AM (GMT -6)

Is there ANY understanding of infant baptism which, if held to by the parents, would leave you unable to accommodate them? Or are you cool with accommodating ALL views regardless? It doesn't really matter what's believed about the event. No error at work can be so bad that it can't be confirmed without objection by just going through with it. Is that it?

T

KIXYTΘEMTA

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2010 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: If the family says, "No, we believe she has to be baptized to wash away her original sin and save her from the fires of hell in the event she were to die; THAT'S the baptism we want you to administer."

What would YOU then tell them?

............

Do NOT tell me about doctors administering life-giving vaccinations to jungle people who would only accept the medicine if the doctor told them their deity was in the medicine.

We're INSIDE of the church now, doing discipleship of people who say they're committed to the Word and want to learn it. Are there ANY understandings of baptism you would be willing to confirm by performing the baptism without qualification/correction/teaching?

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/22/2010 11:16 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Is there ANY understanding of infant baptism which, if held to by the parents, would leave you unable to accommodate them?

Yes. For example, if they said "We don't want you baptizing our child in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We want baptism ONLY in Jesus' name, not the Father or Spirit."...I'd be like "We don't do it that way...and here's why." Or even if they wanted their infant to be baptized in grape juice because they thought it would be cooler, same deal. If they couldn't get with the explanation, then they couldn't be baptized.

******************************

Tom:
Tom: If the family says, "No, we believe she has to be baptized to wash away her original sin and save her from the fires of hell in the event she were to die; THAT'S the baptism we want you to administer."

What would YOU then tell them?

Same thing as above. "We don't do it that way...and here's why."

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/22/2010 10:34:57 AM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/22/2010 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

"...pastoral discernment in individual cases."

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/22/2010 12:38 PM (GMT -6)

These three mysteris go together -- especially historically...baptism, chrismation and eucharist.

Let's just look at the middle for a second. IS AN INFANT A PRIEST (PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVERS) CAUSE T H A T IS WHAT IS AT STAKE...

Tom said...
In other words, what's the NEED for infant baptism? Without that I'd be very hesitant to perform it.

T

(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/23/2010 9:11:15 AM (GMT-6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/22/2010 5:51 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
D: This is why WHC does infant DEDICATIONS rather than infant BAPTISMS. Greg felt you could get the whole "community saying something" thing WITHOUT making it deal in any way with mediation of Grace.

T: Ha! But 'dedications' ARE a mediation of grace. At least that's how I've always view them. If they're not about grace, then WTF are we doing them for? Ha!!

T

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/22/2010 5:59 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
Tom: If the family says, "No, we believe she has to be baptized to wash away her original sin and save her from the fires of hell in the event she were to die; THAT'S the baptism we want you to administer."

What would YOU then tell them?

EO baptism has a spitting on the devil and all his evil, and it has an embracing of Christ and his salvation. Lets just call that part a decication.... and then the water part a sign and a seal of that dedication signifying the role of preist within the holy nation of preists (joining a plurality--as priesthood pf the believers should be understood...)..... and so is also followed up with an anointing of the new priest with oil (OT tradition...)

(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/22/2010 5:06:29 PM (GMT-6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/22/2010 6:08 PM (GMT -6)

Comes down to what you think of the 'priesthood of the believers' (pl). EO are FOR it.

(o)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/23/2010 12:08 AM (GMT -6)

B: IS AN INFANT A PRIEST?

T: I don't think so, no. But I absolutely believe in the priesthood OF ALL BELIEVERS. Is the infant a believer? If yes, then she's a priest. If not, then no.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2010 8:44 AM (GMT -6)

B: IS AN INFANT A PRIEST?

T: ...I absolutely believe in the priesthood OF ALL BELIEVERS.

B (echos): Is the infant a believer?

T: If yes, then she's a priest. If not, then no.

B: What does the text say?

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter 2: 9,10)

(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/23/2010 7:58:40 AM (GMT-6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2010 8:55 AM (GMT -6)

';m interested in seeing what the fathers say -- but I don't want to impose on them the issues of the Reformation and after.....

Let's see what can be found.

NPNF1-09.

St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; .... and by means of the first-fruits, were raised to the royal throne. ...
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.x.iii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.x.iii.html

But God made the gain greater than the loss, and brought our nature to the royal throne. Wherefore Paul cries out and says, “He raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him, on his right hand in the heavenly places, that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness towards us.

and

Women and the priesthood - Google Books Result

by Thomas Hopko - 1999 - Religion - 257 pages
This royal priesthood consists above all in the power possessed by each human person, ... in all and for all" (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0881411469...

Hopko writes

... "all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (3:27)"--Paul is thinking...of baptism, not ordination. This text refers to the royal priesthood of the whole people of God.

.........recreated in baptism and endowed with the charisms of the Holly Spirit in post-baptismal anointing..........in every respect "kings and priests" (Rev.1:16) ............ This royal priesthood consists above all in the power possessed by each human person, made according to the divine image, to act as creator after the likeness of God the creator. Each is able to mold and fashion the world, revealing fresh patterns and a new meaning in created things, making each material object articulate and spiritual the royal priesthood is likewise expressed in the fact that every human person is a "eucharistic animal" capable of offering the world back to its Maker in thanksgiving, of presenting his or her own self, body and soul together, as a "living scrifice" to the holy trinity (Romans 12:1. "Thine own from thine own we offer to thee, in all and for all" (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). Such is the essence of the universal priesthood inherent in all human nature.

(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/23/2010 9:09:35 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/23/2010 9:00 AM (GMT -6)

B: IS AN INFANT A PRIEST?

T: ...I absolutely believe in the priesthood OF ALL BELIEVERS.

B (echos): Is the infant a believer?

T: (echos): No.

--------------

T: If yes, then she's a priest. If not, then no.

B: What does the text say? (1Peter 2: 9,10)

T: Peter's talking about adult believers.

T

KIXYTΘEMTA

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2010 10:04 AM (GMT -6)

B: What does the text say? (1Peter 2: 9,10)

T: Peter's talking about adult believers.

So... what if we keep the work "believer" out of it -- its not in the text -- because of reformation politics...

B: What does the text say?

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter 2: 9,10)

Peter is writing about THOSE WHO HAVE "OBTAINED MERCY."

This royal priesthood consists above all in the power possessed by each human person, made according to the divine image, to act as creator after the likeness of god the creator. Each is able to mold and fashion the world, revealing fresh patterns and a new meaning in created things, (in) making each material object articulate and spiritual the royal priesthood is likewise expressed... (Hopko)

(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/23/2010 9:07:51 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/23/2010 10:59 AM (GMT -6)

I can understand why you need to drop the “of all believers.” But dropping the words doesn’t change anything. Peter’s talking to believers, to the Church. Infants aren’t believers, nor are they priests. They’re not doctors or lawyers either. You BECOME a priest unto God. Infants have no responsibly chosen worldview and can’t function as a priest to anybody; unless you have examples of one month old infants fulfilling the duties of a priest or otherwise mediating between God and the world? Anything will do.

Right.

This doesn’t mean the children of believing parents aren’t “consecrated” or “holy” in a special sense. They are. That doesn’t make them priests or believers or anything. It just means that stand to benefit from being raised with the advantages of a home full of faith. Heck, Paul even says the unbelieving husband of a believing wife, and their children, are holy and consecrated to God because of the believing spouse’s faith. But this no more makes their infant children ‘priests’ unto God as it makes the unbelieving husband a priest unto God, and he’s just as consecrated as the children are by the wife's faith.

To think that the biological offspring of believers are believers (or priests) “by birth” is to make a profound mistake, the same mistake ancient Israel made when they assumed that God’s favor was linked to physical descent, that they were God’s chosen people because of who their parents were. I don’t think so.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 1/23/2010 10:07:22 AM (GMT-6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2010 12:11 PM (GMT -6)

Pelagius might say that you become a priest--he thought that "you" do it.
I'd rather say that God made us in his likeness as priests, and the fall did not obliterate that, but it needs restoring.
And not only the restoring but the ongoing living as priests has to be in community.

I think that a suckling baby can easily participate, _actively_ within the "royal nation," as can a comatose patient who is having everything done for her.

The first time to her mother's breast a newborn "reveal(s) fresh patterns and a new meaning in created things" (breasts, milk, mouth), as well as grows a relationship.

(My dad is in hospice.)

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2010 12:15 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
...fulfilling the duties of a priest

Note that hopko mentions that his definition is NOT clerical ... but lifestyle.

(o)

127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual